[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 154 (2008), Part 5]
[House]
[Pages 6696-6705]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 5819, SBIR/STTR REAUTHORIZATION ACT

  Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on 
Rules, I call up House Resolution 1125 and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 1125

       Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the State of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 5819) to amend

[[Page 6697]]

     the Small Business Act to improve the Small Business 
     Innovation Research (SBIR) program and the Small Business 
     Technology Transfer (STTR) program, and for other purposes. 
     The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All 
     points of order against consideration of the bill are waived 
     except those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. 
     General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not 
     exceed one hour, with 40 minutes equally divided and 
     controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the 
     Committee on Small Business and 20 minutes equally divided 
     and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of 
     the Committee on Science and Technology. After general debate 
     the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-
     minute rule. It shall be in order to consider as an original 
     bill for the purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule 
     the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by 
     the Committee on Small Business now printed in the bill. The 
     committee amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be 
     considered as read. All points of order against the committee 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute are waived except 
     those arising under clause 10 of rule XXI. Notwithstanding 
     clause 11 of rule XVIII, no amendment to the committee 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be in order 
     except those printed in the report of the Committee on Rules 
     accompanying this resolution. Each such amendment may be 
     offered only in the order printed in the report, may be 
     offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall be 
     considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified 
     in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent 
     and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall 
     not be subject to a demand for division of the question in 
     the House or in the Committee of the Whole. All points of 
     order against such amendments are waived except those arising 
     under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. At the conclusion of 
     consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall 
     rise and report the bill to the House with such amendments as 
     may have been adopted. Any Member may demand a separate vote 
     in the House on any amendment adopted in the Committee of the 
     Whole to the bill or to the committee amendment in the nature 
     of a substitute. The previous question shall be considered as 
     ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage 
     without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with 
     or without instructions.
       Sec. 2.  During consideration in the House of H.R. 5819 
     pursuant to this resolution, notwithstanding the operation of 
     the previous question, the Chair may postpone further 
     consideration of the bill to such time as may be designated 
     by the Speaker.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Vermont is recognized for 
1 hour.
  Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
  For the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to 
the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings). All time yielded during 
the consideration of this rule is for debate only.
  I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I also ask unanimous 
consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days in which to revise 
and extend their remarks.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Vermont?
  There was no objection.

                              {time}  1245

  Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 1125 provides for 
the consideration of H.R. 5819, the Small Business Innovation Research 
Program and the Small Business Technology Transfer Program 
Reauthorization Act, under a structured rule.
  The rule provides for 1 hour of general debate, with 40 minutes 
controlled by the Committee on Small Business and 20 minutes controlled 
by the Committee on Science and Technology. The rule makes in order 17 
amendments printed in the Rules Committee report. The amendments are 
each debatable for 10 minutes. The rule also provides one motion to 
recommit with or without instructions.
  Since its inception in 1982, SBIR has assisted small businesses to 
compete for Federal research and development awards. It does that by 
reserving a percentage of the Federal R&D funds for qualifying small 
firms which would not otherwise be able to compete in the Nation's R&D 
arena with larger companies.
  SBIR is a unique collaboration that allows Federal agencies to fund 
projects to meet specific agency needs while expanding opportunities 
for small businesses, including women and minority-owned businesses. 
SBIR has enhanced the role of innovative small businesses and higher 
education research institutions in federally funded research and 
development while fostering competition and productivity in economic 
growth.
  SBIR, Mr. Speaker, targets the entrepreneurial sector because that's 
where the innovators thrive. The risk and expense of conducting serious 
R&D efforts are often beyond the means of small businesses, so SBIR 
funds are a critical start-up in development stages, encourage the 
commercialization of technology, product or service, which in turn 
obviously helps the United States economy.
  And the results, by the way, speak for themselves. Not only are 85 
percent of the businesses competing in SBIR small firms employing 20 or 
fewer persons, but the program has generated 50,000 patents over 25 
years. SBIR has helped thousands of small businesses drive enhancements 
in our Nation's defense, new protections for our environment, and 
advances in health care.
  The National Research Council and the National Academies' report, in 
assessment of the Small Business Innovation Research Program, states, 
``The SBIR program is sound in concept and effective in practice. The 
SBIR program has created a competitive entrepreneurial environment upon 
which small, independently owned businesses can compete to strengthen 
America's high technology economy. Many consider SBIR to be one of our 
most successful technology development programs.''
  This rule allows for consideration of a welcomed reauthorization of 
the SBIR and STTR programs. Just very briefly, what it's going to do is 
increase the existing set-aside for SBIR to 3 percent, and for STTR to 
six-tenths of a percent, increase SBIR and STTR grant award levels, 
increase congressional oversight and evaluation of programs, make 
changes to shorten the application review periods, and create an 
outreach development program for underrepresented States, regions, 
types of businesses, and numbers in the workforce.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend, 
the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch), for yielding me the customary 
30 minutes.
  I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, the small business programs covered by this bill are 
almost totally without their critics; they enjoy widespread bipartisan 
support. But, Mr. Speaker, there is controversy and opposition to this 
legislation because of the manner in which Democrats have chosen to 
conduct the business of this House.
  First, there are concerns expressed about the increased set-aside for 
these two programs, which will come at the cost of other important 
research. Concern and opposition of this bill has come from the head of 
the Small Business Administration, from the White House, and from the 
Association of American Universities, among others, which represents 60 
leading research universities across the country.
  Typically, there would be an opportunity to address these types of 
concerns through committee action before any bill comes to the House 
floor. But the Democrats have chosen to skip past a hearing of the full 
House Science Committee on this scientific research legislation. 
They're just bypassing that step and sending it here to the House 
floor, where the Democrat-controlled Rules Committee decided to further 
restrict action on the legislation by limiting the number of House 
Members who can offer amendments, and they just limited it, Mr. 
Speaker, to just 17 out of 432 Members in the House.
  Now it is true that my Democrat friends on the Rules Committee have 
allowed some amendments to be offered on this bill, but they have 
certainly treated themselves very well. Under this rule, Democrat 
members of the Rules Committee get to offer one-third of the amendments 
allowed to the entire House. Out of the 17 amendments that would be 
made in order

[[Page 6698]]

under this rule, the Rules Committee Democrats get six of them. But 
under the rules that the Rules Committee wrote, 415 Members will not be 
allowed to offer even one amendment.
  Restricting debate on the House floor is really becoming an old habit 
for the new Democrat majority, the new Democrat majority that pledged 
to run a more open, bipartisan House when they won the election in 
2006. The Democrat majority has not kept their promise to the American 
people and have instead passed more closed rules denying all amendments 
on the House floor than any Congress in history, and they did it in 
record time.
  Despite this record of shutting down debate in the House, the new 
majority has failed to complete its work and address matters critical 
to American families, small businesses and the economy. They failed to 
meet last week's April 5 deadline to write a budget for the next fiscal 
year, for example. The current farm bill ended last September, and our 
farmers are still waiting for that bill to be finished.
  House Democrats have refused to pass the Senate's bipartisan bill to 
modernize FISA and to protect our country. Vital tax relief is set to 
expire while Democrats propose the largest tax increase in American 
history. Families, workers and small businesses don't need a record tax 
increase, Mr. Speaker, and they can't afford the plans to cut the child 
tax credit in half, reinstate the marriage penalty, and raise rates on 
every single taxpayer.
  While Democrats plot these record-breaking tax increases, they sit by 
while the price of gasoline rises to record levels. Since Democrats 
took control of Congress in January of last year, the cost of a gallon 
of unleaded gas has gone up by 50 percent. According to the AAA, the 
national average for regular unleaded gasoline has gone up $1.18. The 
cost of gas has gone up more in 15 months, Mr. Speaker, than it had 
gone up in the prior 6 years.
  Two years ago tomorrow, on April 24, 2006, House Speaker  Nancy 
Pelosi, then the Democrat minority leader, issued a press release 
claiming that House Democrats ``have a commonsense plan to bring down 
skyrocketing gas prices.'' This was 2 years ago tomorrow, Mr. Speaker. 
Two weeks after that press release, then minority leader Pelosi said 
that Democrats have ``real solutions'' that would ``lower the price at 
the pump.'' That was 2 years ago, Mr. Speaker, just less than 2 years 
ago. But now they've controlled the House for over a year, yet the 
``real solutions'' and the ``commonsense plan'' promised by Democrats 
are nowhere to be seen. They pledged to lower gas prices, and they've 
done nothing; gas prices keep climbing.
  Mr. Speaker, I think it's time for Speaker Pelosi to reveal the 
Democrat plan and for this House to be allowed to consider ways to 
address the rising price of gasoline. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I will be 
asking my colleagues to defeat the previous question so that I can 
amend the rule to make in order any amendment to the underlying bill 
that would ``have the effect of lowering national average gas price per 
gallon of regular unleaded gas.'' This House can then debate the rising 
cost of gas and we can have that debate, Mr. Speaker, by defeating the 
previous question.
  Mr. Speaker, at this time I will insert into the Record both Speaker 
Pelosi's 2006 press release and a letter sent yesterday from Republican 
leaders to Speaker Pelosi asking for the Democrats to put forward the 
commonsense plan that they had promised.

 Pelosi: `With Skyrocketing Gas Prices, Americans Can No Longer Afford 
                         Rubber Stamp Congress'

       Washington, DC.--House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi 
     released the following statement today on President Bush's, 
     Speaker Hastert's, and the Republican Congress' empty 
     rhetoric on gas prices. Key facts on the Majority's failure 
     to address gas prices follows Pelosi's statement.
       With skyrocketing gas prices, it is clear that the American 
     people can no longer afford the Republican Rubber Stamp 
     Congress and its failure to stand up to Republican big oil 
     and gas company cronies. Americans this week are paying $2.91 
     a gallon on average for regular gasoline--33 cents higher 
     than last month, and double the price than when President 
     Bush first came to office.
       ``With record gas prices, record CEO pay packages, and 
     record oil company profits, Speaker Hastert and the Majority 
     Congress continue to give the American people empty rhetoric 
     rather than join Democrats who are working to lower gas 
     prices now.
       ``Democrats have a commonsense plan to help bring down 
     skyrocketing gas prices by cracking down on price gouging, 
     rolling back the billions of dollars in taxpayer subsidies, 
     tax breaks and royalty relief given to big oil and gas 
     companies, and increasing production of alternative fuels.''
       Key Facts on the Majority's Failure to Address Gas Prices:
       President Bush, Speaker Hastert and the Majority Congress 
     wrote and passed a Republican energy bill that President 
     Bush's own Energy Department said would raise gas prices on 
     American consumers. Big oil and gas companies wrote the 
     Republican energy bill, and the American people paid the 
     price.
       The Majority rejected imposing tough penalties on price 
     gouging companies three times in the past year, since that 
     time, gas prices increased by another 11 cents a gallon.
       Speaker Hastert and the Majority have been blocking action 
     on Congressman Stupak's Federal Response to Energy 
     Emergencies Act (H.R. 3936) since last September, which would 
     protect American consumers from high gas prices by empowering 
     the FTC and the DOJ to investigate and prosecute oil 
     companies engaged in price gouging at each stage of the 
     energy production and distribution chain and outlaws market 
     manipulation.
                                  ____



                                Congress of the United States,

                                   Washington, DC, April 22, 2008.
     Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
     Speaker of the House, U.S. Capitol,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Speaker Pelosi: Two years ago this week, you stated 
     that House Democrats had a ``commonsense plan'' to ``lower 
     gas prices.'' In light of the skyrocketing gasoline prices 
     affecting working families and every sector of our struggling 
     economy, we are writing today to respectfully request that 
     you reveal this ``commonsense plan'' so we can begin work on 
     responsible solutions to help ease this strain.
       Today, the national average for regular unleaded now stands 
     at $3.51 per gallon, according to AAA, which is $1.18 higher 
     than it was at the start of the 110th Congress--a more than 
     50 percent increase. In fact, gas prices rose more in the 
     last 15 months than they did in the six years prior to 
     Democrats taking control of both Houses of Congress in 
     January 2007.
       In the midst of a slowing economy, falling home values and 
     soaring costs of living, this is a heavy premium for working 
     families to bear.
       Americans, particularly those in suburban and rural 
     communities, are paying more simply to commute to work each 
     day. America's truckers, faced with the prospect of paying 
     $1,200 to fill up a tank that just a few years ago cost $600, 
     must now consider taking less work or going out of business 
     altogether. We have seen reports of school districts where 
     filling up buses is already costing as much as $70,000 more 
     than originally budgeted.
       Once a nightmare scenario, $4 gasoline is now a very real 
     possibility of becoming a summer staple. In some cities, 
     including San Francisco and Chicago, it is already a 
     startling reality.
       We noted with great interest, then, that on several 
     occasions you have announced the existence of a Democratic 
     plan to lower gas prices. In fact, it was two years ago this 
     week, on April 24, 2006, when you pledged that ``Democrats 
     have a commonsense plan to help bring down skyrocketing gas 
     prices.'' Just two weeks after that, you stated that 
     Democrats had ``real solutions'' that would ``lower the price 
     at the pump.''
       Yet 15 months into the 110th Congress, you have yet to 
     reveal this ``commonsense plan.''
       House Republicans stand ready to work with you and our 
     Democratic colleagues in a bipartisan fashion to address 
     America's energy crisis. As part of that effort, we 
     respectfully request that you reveal the ``commonsense plan'' 
     to lower gas prices you promised two years ago. The ability 
     to fully consider its provisions, details and costs--
     including any proposed new taxes on gasoline or energy as we 
     have seen in the past--is critical if we are to effectively 
     serve our constituents facing ever-increasing prices at the 
     pump.
       We appreciate your timely reply to this request.
           Sincerely,
         John Boehner, Republican Leader; Roy Blunt, Republican 
           Whip; Adam Putnam, Conference Chairman; Thaddeus 
           McCotter, Policy Committee Chairman; Kay Granger, 
           Conference Vice-Chair; John Carter, Conference 
           Secretary; Tom Cole, Chairman, National Republican 
           Congressional Committee; Eric Cantor, Chief Deputy 
           Whip; David Dreier, Rules Committee Ranking Republican.

  Mr. Speaker, I will be asking my colleagues to defeat the previous 
question at the appropriate time so we can consider ideas for lowering 
prices at the pump.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman

[[Page 6699]]

from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), chairman of the Appropriations Committee.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for the time.
  Let me simply say this bill is intended to increase the small 
business set-aside for these research programs. That does no harm for a 
large agency whose budget has been rising, such as the Department of 
Defense, but it can do immeasurable harm to the crown jewel of our 
research agencies in this country, the National Institutes of Health.
  If we were to do what this bill does to NIH, it would result in $187 
million less being available for traditional medical research grants at 
medical research centers and universities. I think that that is not a 
good idea. The President's budget has already reduced the number of 
grants that NIH will be able to provide by almost 500 grants. This will 
add about another 500 grant reduction to the President's budget. That 
would mean that we would be supporting a grant level for the 
traditional NIH grants at about 1,100 grants fewer than was the case in 
2007. I think that is a very bad idea. Therefore, when the bill comes 
before us, I would urge support of the Ehlers amendment, which will 
correct the problem with respect to the National Institutes of Health.
  I know that some people will say, ``Well, we're not reducing the 
number of grants, we're simply shifting the nature of grants from 
traditional grants to small business grants.'' But the fact is that the 
success rate for small business grants under this bill is expected to 
rise to 52 percent whereas the success rate for applications for 
traditional NIH grants is expected to decline to 18 percent. That is a 
disparity that the scientific community and the country at large simply 
cannot afford.
  NIH believes that there will not be sufficient high-quality grants 
under the small business set-aside to pass peer review over time, and 
that means they would simply have to lapse back precious research money 
that could be used for heart disease, for Parkinson's, for cancer, 
things like that.
  So I would strongly urge, when this bill comes before us, to vote for 
the Ehlers amendment as a way to address that balance.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 
minutes to the distinguished ranking member of the Rules Committee, Mr. 
Dreier of California.
  Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend for yielding.
  ``A commonsense plan to bring down skyrocketing gasoline prices.'' 
That's what my friend from Pasco just quoted my California colleague, 
our distinguished Speaker, as having said 2 years ago tomorrow.
  Mr. Speaker, if we look at what has taken place over that 2-year 
period of time, we know, and I will tell you that as a driver and a 
representative of people who drive the freeways of southern California, 
we've seen gas prices skyrocket over the past 2 years.

                              {time}  1300

  There's no plan put forward.
  We're very proud of the fact that we have a plan. I just had the 
privilege of talking to my friend from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus) about 
some of the challenges that we face. Obviously, I believe that 
environmentally sound exploration in ANWR, the Arctic National Wildlife 
Reserve, is the responsible thing for us to do. The Outer Continental 
Shelf is what we need to pursue. There's this potential of a great new 
shale find in North Dakota.
  And then one of the interesting things that Mr. Shimkus and I were 
just discussing is the fact that it, of course, has been three decades, 
three decades, since we have seen the construction of any new refinery 
in this country and, of course, three decades since we have seen the 
construction of any nuclear power facility. We all know that nuclear 
power is the cleanest, safest, most cost-effective energy source 
around.
  These are the kinds of responsible things that we are proposing, Mr. 
Speaker. Unfortunately, our colleagues on the other side of the aisle 
have consistently stood in the way of every single one of those very 
responsible measures.
  And pursuing alternative sources is something else that we strongly 
support. Coal to liquid, those are the kinds of things that we need to 
be doing.
  Now, what is it that we are doing here with this rule? We are, of 
course, talking about small business issues, but we know the 
overwhelming concern of our constituents today is this problem of 
skyrocketing gasoline prices.
  So when we move to defeat the previous question, Mr. Hastings, my 
friend from Pasco, is going to seek to offer an amendment to this rule. 
The amendment will simply say that any Member, any Member, who has a 
proposal that will deal with providing a commonsense plan to address 
the problem of skyrocketing gas prices will be able to offer that 
amendment here on the House floor. So all we're asking our colleagues 
to do is to amend this rule by defeating the previous question so that 
we will be able to deal with one of the most pressing concerns that our 
constituents are asking us to address.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question so that 
we will allow our Members to step up to the plate and offer these very, 
very thoughtful solutions or anything that our friends on the other 
side of the aisle might seek to offer as an amendment that would, in 
fact, allow this to happen.
  I thank, again, my friend for yielding.
  Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Wu), the Chair of the 
Subcommittee on Research.
  Mr. WU. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I don't know how we got on the subject of gasoline 
prices because we're here to talk about SBIR and STTR. But if we want 
to talk about the price of gasoline, I think that the reason why we 
have $4-a-gallon gasoline is because this administration got us into an 
unnecessary war in Iraq and that drove up the price of gasoline at 
least $2 a gallon. So if you want to talk about gasoline, let's talk 
about the war in Iraq.
  Now let's return to the subject of SBIR and STTR. The last time that 
we authorized either one of these problems, the SBIR program, was in 
the 106th Congress. The bill was marked up by the Small Business 
Committee and discharged by the Science Committee. I would note that 
the bill was not even referred to a subcommittee of the Science 
Committee. The bill then proceeded to the floor under a suspension of 
the rules. And we all know that as a suspension bill, there was 
absolutely no opportunity to offer an amendment to the underlying 
legislation.
  Again, the last time that we authorized STTR, which was in the 107th 
Congress, the bill was marked up by the full Small Business Committee 
and discharged by both the Subcommittee on Environment, Technology, and 
Standards and by the full Science Committee without any Science 
Committee markup. The bill then proceeded to the floor under a 
suspension of the rules, and again there was absolutely no opportunity 
to amend the bill.
  What do we have today? We have 17 amendments on the floor. We have 17 
amendments made in order by the Rules Committee here on the floor.
  Who's running an open process?
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WU. I would be happy to yield.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I appreciate the gentleman for yielding.
  Two points: 415 Members of this House are denied an opportunity to 
offer an amendment because this is a structured rule, number one.
  Number two, I would hope that my friend from Oregon would join me in 
voting to defeat the previous question because he has a view on why gas 
prices are high. If we have an open debate on that, he'll have his 
opportunity to make that argument and perhaps offer legislation that 
would lower the price of gasoline. That is precisely what I'm going to 
be asking my colleagues to do in defeating the previous question so 
they'll have that opportunity. I hope the gentleman will join with me 
in that regard.
  Mr. WU. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, with 17 amendments made in

[[Page 6700]]

order under this structured rule, which I support, I think the 
gentleman and I will have plenty of time to share on the floor today.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WU. I would be happy to yield.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  But my point is that when the gentleman was talking about the rising 
price of gas, he has an opinion as to why gasoline prices have risen. 
We haven't had a debate on this.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman from Oregon has 
expired.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 additional 
minute on this issue.
  Mr. Speaker, I just simply want to say that we haven't had a debate, 
and this is an opportunity to debate this issue. And I hope the 
gentleman will join with me in voting to defeat the previous question 
so we can have his ideas on what would lower the price of gasoline, 
along with other ideas being debated.
  That would not take away, would not take away at all, the ability to 
debate only those 17 amendments that you said were made in order. But 
the fact still remains 415 Members of this body do not have a chance to 
perfect this bill as they see fit.
  Mr. WU. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I am happy to yield to my friend.
  Mr. WU. Seventeen amendments is obviously 17 times any one amendment 
to the SBIR bill. Now last time there were zero amendments; so it's 
infinitely better than what happened last time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, under 
suspension of the rules, there is generally agreement between both the 
minority and the majority. If the gentleman was upset then, he could 
have very easily have defeated the bill and brought it up under a 
special rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Flake).
  Mr. FLAKE. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Seventeen amendments were ruled in order. But I can tell you one that 
wasn't: It was one that I offered. It would have been simple to do it. 
If we are going to make seventeen amendments in order, why not make 
this one?
  I offered an amendment that would simply have prevented any funds 
appropriated to the Federal agencies that must participate in these 
grant programs from being used for earmarks.
  Now last week we had a bill called the Beach bill. It came under an 
open rule; so I couldn't be blocked from offering a similar amendment 
saying no funds authorized in this bill could be used for earmarks. I 
offered that amendment and it received overwhelming support. It passed 
by a 2-1 margin. I believe more than half of the Democrats voted for it 
and an overwhelming number of Republicans. Why wouldn't we allow that 
amendment to be offered here?
  We have programs here, grant programs, and it's conceivable there 
could be 5,000 or 6,000 grants offered under this program. The 
temptation is going to be, as it is with all of the other accounts that 
we have earmarked in this place, to earmark it, for Members to simply 
set it aside and say I want this grant to go to one of my constituents 
or somebody else. And for those who say we haven't traditionally done 
that with this program, well, we didn't traditionally do it with the 
Homeland Security bill either. For the first 3 years that it came to 
the floor, some $32 billion, none of it was earmarked. But last year 
about $750 million was earmarked, more than 600 earmarks, nearly all of 
them air-dropped in at the last moment. So we have a habit around here 
of discovering a pot of money that can be earmarked for our own 
political purposes.
  I know that the overwhelming majority of rank-and-file Members in 
this body don't want this to happen because it's typically those 
Members in a leadership position or a committee Chair position or some 
Member of seniority that typically benefits more than other Members. 
But I was denied that ability to bring that amendment to the floor 
today, and I would submit that the more we allow bills like this to 
come to the floor without amendments being offered like this, the more 
we're going to suffer.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman from Arizona has 
expired.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield 1 additional minute to the 
gentleman.
  Mr. FLAKE. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. Speaker, as we allow authorization bills to come to the floor and 
we don't have a prohibition about the money being appropriated later 
from being earmarked, we are going to see them earmarked. That has been 
the trend around this place in recent years. That trend is not just 
continuing; it is accelerating, with the Homeland Security bill, as I 
mentioned.
  So I would appeal to everyone to vote down this rule. Let's bring 
back a rule that allows a broader scope of amendments, ones that will 
actually preclude all of the grants authorized in this bill from being 
earmarked for political purposes.
  And with that, I would urge a ``no'' vote on the rule.
  Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 
minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus).
  Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Speaker, this is a small business bill. Let me tell 
you why this is relevant. The biggest challenge to small businesses in 
America today is the high cost of energy. Let me say that again. The 
biggest challenge to America's small businesses today is the high cost 
of energy.
  Here's an article from a paper: ``Independent Truckers,'' they're 
small businessmen, ``Join Strike.'' Why? Over $4 a barrel for diesel, 
$4 a gallon for diesel fuel. They can't operate. You wonder why food 
prices are going up? Gas prices are too high.
  What has the Democrat majority done? Nothing.
  This is a great opportunity to bring all our collective ideas, put 
legislation in front of the American people, and say let's vote on 
bills that will affect and lower the cost of gasoline.
  Now, the Democrats should be happy about this because Speaker Pelosi 
promised in April of 2006 that the Democrats have a commonsense plan to 
help bring down skyrocketing gas prices. In 2006. We're still waiting 
for the plan.
  In fact, there is a plan. The plan is this: The plan is for the 
barrel of crude oil to go up. When the Democrats took the majority, it 
was $58 a barrel. What is it today? It's $117.36. When you have no 
plan, you plan to fail.
  You want to help small businesses? Bring an energy bill to the floor 
that brings on more supply.
  Look at what it has done at the gas pump. You've heard the 
terminology: ``Pelosi premium.'' The price of a gallon of gasoline when 
the Democrats took over: $2.33. What is it today? It's $3.53. Add to 
that climate change legislation, Chairman Dingell wants to bring to the 
floor 50 cents in additional cost to a gallon of gas. Right now that 
would be $4 a gallon. And we know when we get to the summer driving 
season, it's going to be $4. Add 50 cents: $4.50 a gallon. What do the 
Democrats bring to the floor? They bring nothing to the floor. Nothing.
  Do we have plans? Actually, we have a bipartisan majority if the 
leadership would bring a bill to the floor. We have a bipartisan 
majority, most of the Republicans would vote for it, we'd get 40 or 50 
Democrats, to move more supply, more supply like opening up the Outer 
Continental Shelf, more supply like coal-to-liquid technology, more 
supply like expanding nuclear power, more supply by going after the oil 
shale, more supply by going after our marginal oil wells. We can bring 
more supply.
  We're the only industrialized nation in the world that doesn't use 
its resources. That's why we import all this crude oil. We don't use 
our resources. Coal to liquid, in Illinois alone, 250 years worth of 
fossil fuel. We could turn that into liquid fuel.

[[Page 6701]]

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman from Illinois has 
expired.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield the gentleman 1 additional 
minute.
  Mr. SHIMKUS. I know the liberal left and the environmentalists don't 
like coal. I know that. And they tout Kyoto. I know that. They tout our 
European friends.
  The New York Times today: ``Europe Turns to Coal Again.'' Europe 
turns to coal.
  When is this body going to turn to coal to solve our energy prices?

                              {time}  1315

  Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 
minutes to the gentleman from Georgia, Dr. Gingrey.
  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I 
certainly come to the floor today in support of the Small Business 
Innovative Research Act, and if some of the amendments, particularly 
the one offered by my friend on the other side, Mr. Welch, is approved, 
and maybe a couple of other amendments, I definitely plan to support 
this bill.
  But in regard to this rule, Mr. Speaker, I am fully supportive of my 
colleague from Pasco, my former colleague on the Rules Committee, that 
says we want to defeat this previous question to give Members an 
opportunity to come to this floor and talk about something that indeed 
is more of a crisis than what we do with our Small Business Innovative 
Research Grants, although that is important. So that is the reason why 
I will vote in favor of defeating the previous question.
  Mr. Speaker, the promises that were made, and I just want to show, if 
my colleagues will look at this chart, the day George Bush was sworn 
into office as President, the price of regular gasoline was $1.49. Two 
years ago, about 2 years ago, the day that Nancy Pelosi was sworn in as 
Speaker, the price of a gallon of regular gasoline was $2.33, and 
today, 15 months into her leadership, gas prices have spiked at $3.50 a 
gallon for regular, a $1.30 increase in my home State of Georgia.
  Mr. Speaker, this is really unacceptable, it's downright deplorable, 
especially when the new Democratic majority and the new Speaker of the 
House campaigned and made a pledge that they would bring down the price 
of gasoline. Instead of bringing it down, Mr. Speaker, look what has 
happened. This is not a linear growth, this is an unbelievable 
exponential growth.
  So as part of this changing of the rule if we defeat the previous 
question, it would require, Madam Speaker, within 5 days, she's had 15 
months, but it would require her within 5 days to bring a bill to 
provide a commonsense plan to help bring down skyrocketing gas prices.
  The previous gentleman from Illinois had some great ideas; the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson) had some great ideas. There 
are so many Members that could come to this floor on both sides of the 
aisle and give some amendments and some ideas that would truly bring 
down our dependence on foreign oil. Right now, 60 percent of our usage 
comes from either the Middle East or from Venezuela.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman from Georgia has 
expired.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield the gentleman an additional 2 
minutes.
  Mr. GINGREY. I thank the gentleman for yielding. My good friend, my 
subcommittee Chair on the Science Committee, made a comment. He said, 
the reason for the skyrocketing price of gasoline is because of what is 
going on in the Middle East; this war that we are waging in Iraq.
  Well, I would like to point out to him that the production of oil 
from Iraq today is exactly what it was prior to the war 5 years ago 
commencing. And that is about 2.5 million gallons a day from Iraq. So 
the price of oil has nothing to do with that. It absolutely has nothing 
to do with it. We are going to control this with some of the ideas, the 
coal-to-liquid idea that Mr. Shimkus, the gentleman from Illinois, just 
talked about. We are going to help solve this problem by licensing some 
new nuclear power plants.
  As the former chairman of the Rules Committee, Mr. Dreier, the 
gentleman from California, talked about, yes, we are going to look at 
solar, we are going to look at wind. We certainly, as our minority 
party, now former majority party, have tried so hard to get us to 
explore for more oil and gas in this country. ANWR could produce 
another 1.5 million barrels of oil a day, and drilling on the Outer 
Continental Shelf, why are those things blocked?
  It's time for us to do something about it, and I am glad that the 
gentleman from Washington is going to ask all Members to vote against 
the previous question and let's give an opportunity for Members to come 
down and give their ideas.
  Mr. WELCH of Vermont. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, how much time remains on 
both sides?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman has 9 minutes. The gentleman 
from Vermont has 22 minutes.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 
minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers).
  Mr. EHLERS. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I rise to raise an issue about Small Business Innovation Research 
funding and also Small Business Technology Transfer Research funding. 
This bill which is coming up before us increases SBIR by 20 percent and 
increases STTR by 100 percent. These increases seem totally out of line 
to me, particularly since that money comes out of the research budgets 
of the other agencies of the Federal Government. I have offered an 
amendment, which I am very grateful to the Rules Committee for making 
in order, which would remove those increases.
  Let me explain why it is important to remove those increases. It is 
because the money for those is taken away from the current fundamental 
research programs of the Federal Government. In fact, these increases 
will remove $650 million from the other research funds at various 
agencies. Just to give an example that we are talking about real money 
here, note that just for NIH alone, at a time when agency funding 
increases are below inflation level and we are simply not putting 
enough money into health research, this particular change in SBIR and 
STTR will reduce the NIH budget by $185 million.
  Now we would not think if a proposal came to the floor to directly 
reduce NIH and NSF funding, we would not even think about bringing it 
to the floor or even bringing it up for a vote. Yet this particular 
provision was put in the Small Business bill without the full consent 
of the Science Committee. It was presented to us in such a short time 
span, we couldn't even have a meeting of or mark-up by the full Science 
Committee, which happens to have jurisdiction over this particular 
payment. We managed to have a hearing before a subcommittee, and that 
was the extent of the Science Committee's involvement.
  I think this was done without full thought and I don't believe any of 
my colleagues are interested in reducing the funding for the National 
Science Foundation, or the Department of Defense, or the NIH at a time 
like this.
  So I thank the Rules Committee again for putting this motion in 
order. I also wanted to say my amendment is supported by the 
Association of American Universities, the American Association of 
Medical Colleges, the Federation of American Societies for Experimental 
Biology, the National Association of State Land-Grant Colleges, and 
also the National Academy of Sciences. I urge my colleagues to support 
my amendment.
  Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).
  Mr. DeFAZIO. I believe it's April Fools Day here on the floor of the 
House. To hear the members of the GOP, the Grand Old Oil Party, talking 
about how they are there for the consumers, they want to do something 
to

[[Page 6702]]

help American consumers, the same party that benefits 
disproportionately from massive campaign contributions from the oil and 
gas and coal industries, the same party that holds the White House, 
with two oil men in the White House, the same party that on the Senate 
side defeated our energy provisions because they would have, God 
forbid, made the oil and gas companies pay taxes like other members of 
the corporate community. It would have taken away subsidies.
  They are crying crocodile tears about the massive profits their 
buddies are making. They are campaign contributors, they are sponsors, 
and the President, the oil man, the Vice-President, the oil man supply 
services company.
  Now there's a few things we could do. The President is a big free 
trader. He is trying to push us into more free trade agreements. He 
says they work great. He wants rules-based trade. Well, we are in the 
WTO. They have rules. The rules say you cannot restrict the supply of a 
commodity simply to drive up the price. That is what OPEC is doing. Now 
five members of OPEC are in the WTO.
  Will this President, the oil man, the friend of the Saudis and the 
others, will he file a complaint with the World Trade Organization 
against OPEC? No. I wrote to him 3 years ago asking him to do that. The 
answer was no. The Saudis and the OPEC countries want to get together 
to collude and drive up the price of oil. That is just fine with George 
Bush. He is all for free trade and rules-based trade, except when the 
rules might hurt some of his buddies, and then the oil industry just 
piggybacks on top of that.
  Now there is another thing they could do. They could help us with the 
provision we put in the farm bill, which is stalled in the Senate, 
which would close the Enron loophole. Remember Enron? Ken boy, the 
President's favorite guy. He just died before he went to jail. Well, 
the Enron boys convinced the Republican Congress to give them a special 
loophole, to deregulate energy commodities to allow for massive 
speculation. And there is widespread agreement in the financial 
community that about 50 cents of the price that is being paid at the 
pump today is being paid purely because of speculation brought about by 
the Enron loophole.
  You really want to do something about the high price of oil? Help us 
close the Enron loophole. Get your President to file a complaint 
against OPEC for colluding to drive up the price of oil. Help strip out 
the taxpayer subsidies to the oil, coal, and gas industry. You're 
taking it out of their wallets while you take it out of their pockets 
at the pump.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 
minutes to the gentleman from Texas, a member of the Rules Committee, 
Mr. Sessions.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, we just heard an argument. That is okay. I 
can understand that people want to blame President Bush for things. But 
the fact of the matter is that the pressure on this issue comes 
directly to the Democratic Party, the Democratic Party that absolutely 
cuts America off from being energy independent. They are the people, 
not OPEC, that have caused America to have to go to OPEC to get our 
oil. And in the time when there is competition for this oil because we 
don't produce our own here in the United States, of course you're going 
to pay more money.
  To blame this on George Bush, when in fact it is the Democratic Party 
that has shut off America from energy independence, from the ability 
that it has to go, just one case, to the Arctic Wildlife Reserve to be 
able to get millions and millions of barrels of oil that reside within 
our own United States. We are the ones, as a result of the Democratic 
Party, that have to go to OPEC to buy the fuel we need.
  It is an absolutely ridiculous argument to blame George Bush when in 
fact it was Bill Clinton as President who vetoed the bill which would 
have given us millions of barrels of oil back in 1995, available to 
consumers today. It is the Democratic Party and the ability from the 
Speaker, the current Speaker of the House, Ms. Pelosi, to follow what 
we have with their public policy to make sure that Americans are paying 
more at the pump today. But you can't blame George Bush.
  Let's put the blame where it really is, and that is America is not 
energy independent. We have to go to other places, we have to get oil, 
and the world wants the same thing from that marketplace. So rather 
than throwing insults at each other, why don't we do something about 
it.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman from Texas has 
expired.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 
seconds.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the gentleman.
  What we need to do is have a real live debate on this floor where we 
figure out that America should become energy independent. That means we 
would be able to not only produce the oil and the energy from this 
country, but we would be able to have the jobs that come from that.
  I believe the charge that is equally fair today is to say that it is 
Ms. Pelosi's public policy that built Dubai. We should quit building 
Dubai.

                              {time}  1330

  Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Mr. Speaker, I recognize the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) for 3 minutes.
  Mr. MARKEY. I thank the gentleman from Vermont very much.
  We welcome this debate. We welcome a debate on the Bush-Republican 
energy policy. Let's begin with a brief review of where the price of 
oil was back when President Bush was sworn in as President. It was $27 
a barrel. That is what President Clinton, that is what Vice President 
Gore, handed over to President Bush, $27 a barrel oil. Now let's look 
at what the price of a barrel of oil was yesterday: $119 a barrel for 
oil. So President Bush and Vice President Cheney, they might not know a 
lot about other issues, but you would think oil policy they would 
understand.
  Well, this is what you get after 8 years of a Bush-Cheney Presidency, 
abetted and aided for 6 of those years by a Republican Congress.
  Let's even take it further. Let's take it to the next step. Let's 
look at oil company profits. Let's just take the big five oil companies 
in the United States, led by ExxonMobil. Well, the cumulative profits 
of all five companies in 2001 was $37 billion. All five of the big oil 
companies cumulatively made $37 billion.
  Now let's look at last year. Last year, those five oil companies made 
$123 billion in profits. And ExxonMobil alone made $42 billion, the 
largest profit of any corporation in American history, exceeding the 
total amount of all of those oil companies' profits in 2001.
  So what has happened after 8 years of the Bush-Cheney administration 
is that they have allowed Big Oil and OPEC to take the American 
consumer and tip him upside down at the gasoline pump every single day, 
shaking money out of their pockets.
  And looking over at this strategic asset that was built by the 
American people, the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, which now has 700 
million barrels of oil in it, as the American people say to the 
President, please deploy this weapon which the American people have to 
protect the American economy and the American consumer.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 additional minutes to 
the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. MARKEY. I thank the gentleman.
  The Bush administration continues to purchase 70,000 barrels of oil a 
day from Big Oil and OPEC. They are doing it today, buying it at $119 a 
barrel, buying it today, even though it makes no economic sense. We 
shouldn't be contributing to this speculation, which is driving up the 
price of oil. Instead, what the Bush administration should be doing is 
taking some of that Strategic Petroleum Reserve, the 700 million barrel 
asset, and beginning to deploy it as a weapon against the speculators 
who are driving the price of oil up and driving our economy into the 
ground.

[[Page 6703]]

  The Bush administration won't do either. They won't stop buying oil 
at $119 a barrel and they won't at the same time use this asset now 
that is supposed to be there to protect the health of the American 
economy and deploying it in a way which, I will tell you, it will prick 
the speculative bubble almost immediately and begin to drive down the 
price of oil. That is only something that the President can do, if he 
determines that there is an economic emergency in our country, if he 
believes that our country is being adversely affected by high energy 
prices. That is a decision that can only be made in the Oval Office.
  Obviously, the Bush administration, having seen the price rise from 
$27 a barrel to $119 a barrel, still does not believe that we are 
absent any energy policy, still believes that it is a free market and 
that OPEC and big oil are operating in a free market and that is just 
the natural price of oil.
  But here is the interesting testimony before the Select Committee on 
Energy Independence last week.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has again expired.
  Mr. WELCH of Vermont. I yield 1 additional minute to the gentleman 
from Massachusetts.
  Mr. MARKEY. When I asked the number two executive at ExxonMobil what 
he was doing with his $42 billion worth of profits last year in terms 
of investing in renewable energy resources, the CEO said that he was 
going to invest $10 million in renewable energy resources. $42 billion 
worth of profit, $10 million going into renewable energy resources.
  When I said to him, you know, the Bush administration and the 
Republican Congress gave you $18 billion worth of additional tax breaks 
3 years ago and now at $119 a barrel you don't need them anymore, can 
we take those and give them as tax breaks for renewable energy 
resources, all of the oil executives said, no, we want the tax breaks. 
We don't want that to go over to renewables. And, secondly, we love our 
profits, and we are not going to invest them in renewables.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has again expired.
  Mr. WELCH of Vermont. I yield 30 additional seconds to the gentleman 
from Massachusetts.
  Mr. MARKEY. That is a recipe for continued abject subservience to 
this oil industry and to OPEC. The President has to get aggressive on 
deploying the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, stopping his policy of 
buying $119 barrel oil, 70,000 barrels a day from OPEC and Big Oil. 
Secondly, we need a new policy on getting aggressive on renewable 
energy, which the Republican majority for 12 years and the Bush White 
House has turned a blind eye to. And that is why we are in the mess 
that we are in today.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will note that the gentleman from 
Washington has 3\1/2\ minutes remaining and the gentleman from Vermont 
has 12\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from Connecticut (Mr. Murphy).
  Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. I thank the gentleman from Vermont.
  I am here as a new Member of Congress because my constituents, like 
millions of others around the country, figured out what was happening 
here in the United States Congress for the last 12 years, that the 
priority was to pad the pockets of the oil companies at the detriment 
of American consumers.
  They have also figured out what has been happening here on the floor 
of the House of Representatives for the last year-and-a-half. As this 
Democratic majority has passed legislation cracking down on price 
gougers, as this Democratic majority has passed legislation going after 
the multinational oil cartels, as this Democratic Congress has passed 
legislation repealing the billions of dollars in subsidies for the oil 
companies and turning them around into ordinary subsidies for ordinary 
Americans to try to put renewable resources and energy in their home, 
we have done it all without help from the President, we have done it 
all without almost any help from the Republicans.
  That is why there are so many new Members of Congress ready to set a 
new direction on energy policy, and that is why it is time for the 
Republican minority to join the Democrat in setting a new energy policy 
for this country.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker I yield myself 30 seconds.
  Mr. Speaker, I find this debate of the last three Members absolutely 
incredible. All we have heard from the last three speakers is the 
problems, but we have heard no solutions.
  So I want to repeat, Mr. Speaker, by defeating the previous question, 
we can debate solutions on the floor of this House. I would hope that 
all of those, especially the last three speakers on the other side, 
would join me in voting ``no'' on the previous question so they can 
offer their solutions so we can debate them on the floor of the House. 
That is the sum and total of defeating the previous question.
  Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from Michigan (Mr. Stupak).
  Mr. STUPAK. I want to thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I am proud to come to the floor to talk about solutions that the 
Democratic Party has put forth and this House has tackled in the last 
year. But let's not try to rewrite history, as we see being done on the 
other side.
  Let's remember when President Bush came to office in 2001, crude oil 
sold at $25.88 a barrel. When the Iraq war began, that terrible, 
misguided war, crude oil was $35 a barrel. Gas was approximately $1.56. 
In my district today, gas is $3.56. Crude oil is over $119. That is 
what the Republican policies have brought us, a bad war and gas and oil 
that we cannot afford.
  The Energy Information Agency says gas will be $4 this summer. Diesel 
is already $4. So what have the GOP and this President said they are 
going to do? Remember? He is going to jawbone his friends the Saudis to 
produce more oil so we would have it here in this country.
  Oh, he jawboned all right. He jawboned all the way up to record 
prices, record profits, where ExxonMobil can pay its CEO a $400 million 
pension with $44 billion in profits last year. Oh, boy, they jawboned 
all right. Their jawbone is chewing on our pocketbook and is hurting 
the middle class in this country.
  What have we done? The energy price gouging bill, H.R. 1252, which we 
passed last May 284-141. One hundred forty-one on the other side 
wouldn't even vote for us to stop the gouging of prices that we see day 
in and day out. This legislation would have provided the Federal Trade 
Commission with the authority to investigate and prosecute those who 
engage in price gouging, predatory pricing and other unfair practices.
  I don't know about you, but I am tired of seeing gas go up 30 cents 
like it did earlier this month in my district. One day, 30 cents. Now, 
if that is not excessive pricing, predatory price gouging, I don't know 
what it is.
  Let's take a look at the PUMP Act, a piece of legislation we have 
been working on since April of 2006, and we have plenty of cosponsors. 
We had a hearing last December, December 12. What did they say? Pass 
the PUMP Act to prevent the unfair manipulation of prices. Professor 
Greenberg said we could save $30 a barrel. For every barrel of oil that 
comes into this country, we can save $30 by getting the speculators out 
of the market.
  Why do we continue to allow speculators to run this country? They 
sure did a good job with mortgages, didn't they, with the subprime 
mortgages. That is why the values of our properties have gone down. Now 
the speculators are in the oil field, in the energy field. And why is 
that? Because of a little thing when the Republicans were in charge 
called the Enron loophole. The Enron loophole in 2005 allowed the 
speculators to come into the energy field, and therefore they have run 
up the price. What did the hearings show?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.

[[Page 6704]]


  Mr. WELCH of Vermont. I yield 1 additional minute to the gentleman 
from Michigan.
  Mr. STUPAK. Ninety-five to 98 percent of those playing in this market 
have no intentions of taking possession of oil or providing a product. 
They are there for one reason, to rake all the profits off the American 
people that they can through their excessive speculations.
  This Democratic Congress has also passed a Renewable Energy Tax Act 
to help lessen our dependence on foreign energy sources.
  Look. Since this war started in Iraq, everything has doubled and 
tripled. We have heard nothing from the other side. This Democratic 
Congress continues to do things to try to curb the abuses we find in 
the energy field, that we find in manipulation of prices and 
speculation. We will continue to work towards that.
  To come down here and somehow try to rewrite history, it is just not 
going to work. It is important to note that tax breaks that are 
eliminated in the Renewable Energy Tax Act are equivalent to less than 
1 percent of the oil companies' net income, but yet they complain.

                              {time}  1345

  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  Mr. Speaker, my friend from Michigan just made the case for me one 
more time to defeat the previous question so that the gentleman could 
offer some solutions.
  I just want to remind everybody, Mr. Speaker. Two years ago tomorrow, 
then Democrat minority leader Nancy Pelosi said: We have a commonsense 
plan to help bring down skyrocketing gas prices. We have real solutions 
to lower the price at the pump.
  When the Democrats took over, the price at the pump was $2.33. Now, 
it is $3.51.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield myself another 15 seconds.
  Mr. Speaker, by defeating the previous question we can discuss and 
debate those solutions. That is all I am asking Members to do. I am not 
taking sides, I am not saying their ideas are bad. I am just saying we 
have an opportunity to debate those solutions.
  Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee).
  Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, I just had a meeting I think is relevant to 
this conversation. I just met with the leaders of the Phoenix Motor Car 
Company of Ontario, California. They hope to bring out an all-electric 
car that will go 120 miles on one charge. You can charge your car for 
$3 and not use a drop of gasoline.
  Now they could use a little assistance from Uncle Sam to bring these 
products to market as quickly as possible, and we on this side of the 
aisle proposed some bills to do that because we wanted to take the 21 
billions of dollars that this side of the aisle wants to give to the 
oil and gas companies in tax breaks and give those tax breaks to 
consumers and companies so that we can get all-electric cars, so we can 
break our addiction to Middle Eastern oil. That is a solution. You want 
solutions? You can't handle solutions. We gave you a solution: Let's 
get electric cars on the road. We have a bill to do that. And if we can 
get some help there from the other side of the aisle, then the 
President will make this happen.
  I will give you another company, the Astro Solar Energy Company. They 
can produce electricity just by solar thermal power. We wanted to give 
them some help to do that, this side of the aisle blocked it because 
they wanted to help some friends in the oil and gas industry.
  So those are the long-term solutions. But I wanted to mention a 
short-term solution. Tell me why on this green earth we do not have the 
oil and gas industry futures market protected and governed by the 
Commodities Futures Trading Commission? We want them to put them under 
the regulation of that, have transparency. We regulate the orange, 
wheat, and soybean futures market; this market ought to be regulated as 
well. This side of the aisle stands to do that; 36 Democrats are on the 
bill to do that, Mr. Stupak's bill. We have only got two Republicans. 
We welcome Republicans to get in the solutions business. Help us pass 
this bill.
  I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I appreciate my friend for yielding. I 
just simply want to say, and you make my case. If you have these 
solutions, defeat the previous question and we can have a debate on 
that.
  Mr. INSLEE. We have solutions. What we don't have is a President in 
the White House who will sign these bills or the Republicans who will 
break a filibuster in the Senate. You have got a Presidential candidate 
running this year who didn't vote to break the filibuster to give these 
tax breaks to these all-electric and solar thermal companies. That is 
what we need and we will get this job done.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. INSLEE. I don't have any more time. I will yield on your time if 
you like, Mr. Hastings. I will be happy to yield on your time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I took all of my time 
because I was advised there were no speakers on the other side, so I 
can't yield time right now.
  Mr. INSLEE. Thank you.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I inquire once again of my 
friend from Vermont if he has any more speakers.
  Mr. WELCH of Vermont. I am the last speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Vermont has 5 minutes. 
The gentleman from Washington has 2\1/4\ minutes.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Thank you for being so precise, Mr. 
Speaker. I do appreciate that.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, I just want to reiterate, we have had a debate on the 
problems. We haven't had a debate on the solutions. My motion then 
would allow that to happen. So let me repeat, Mr. Speaker.
  Two years ago, Speaker Pelosi promised Americans a Democrat plan to 
lower gas prices at the pump. They have controlled Congress for 15 
months, but we still have not seen this plan. Meanwhile, the cost of 
gas is setting record highs.
  Under their leadership, the national average price of gas has 
increased by $1.18. It is time for the House to debate ideas for 
lowering gas prices. It is time for the Democrats to reveal their 
plans.
  Mr. Speaker, by defeating the previous question, I will move to amend 
the rule to allow any amendment be made in order on the underlying bill 
that would, quote, have the effect of lowering the national average 
price per gallon of regular unleaded gas.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to have the text of the 
amendment and extraneous material inserted into the Record prior to the 
vote on the previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Washington?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to 
defeat the previous question so that we can have this debate, so that 
we can consider these vitally important issues that America's families, 
workers, truckers, small businesses, and our entire economy face with 
these rising prices of gasoline.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Mr. Speaker, I have mainly listened as this 
debate has unfolded, and I have an observation. This is a sad 
spectacle. The Congress of the United States has before it now a bill 
that is intended to address an urgent need to provide research funding 
for our small businesses.
  Small business is the backbone of our economy, it is where most jobs 
are created, it is where some of the best innovations occur, and where 
our small businesses need some assistance to put together the financing 
package required to explore innovative research

[[Page 6705]]

and development ideas. Our small businesses don't have the funds that 
are available oftentimes through big venture capital operations. And 
what we are hearing in this debate is a complete and utter disregard 
for the content of this bill and, instead, turning it into a political 
debate that veers wildly away from any truth about what the history of 
this whole gas crisis is.
  Number one, the basic question before us is, are we going to help the 
research and development needs of our small businesses? We believe it 
is urgent that we do so, and we won't be deterred by what is now a 
political argument.
  Second, since our friends on the other side have made an accusation 
that there has been Democratic culpability, almost a conspiracy, in 
raising gas prices, I want to respond to the absurdity of that.
  We have heard from our speakers how the price of a barrel of oil when 
President Bush took over was $25, it is now $119. We know that the war 
in Iraq, when it started, that catastrophic war, the price was $35, it 
is now $119. But what we also know is that under the leadership of the 
Republican Congress, we turned a blind eye on the Government's 
responsibility to look out for the middle class. Why? We destroyed 
regulatory oversight that is necessary to help folks pulling up with 
their pickup truck to fill up their gas tank.
  This Enron loophole, snuck in, in the middle of the night with the 
complicity of a Republican Congress is, Mr. Speaker, and I say this 
intentionally, unconscionable, unconscionable to meeting the needs of 
average Americans who are trying to work hard and pay their bills. 
Fifty cents at least in the price of a gallon of gasoline is because 
the speculators, the hedge fund managers, are singing every day as they 
make wire transfers to their bank accounts at the expense of everyday 
Americans.
  And my question is, why will not those who are expressing concern 
about the cost of gasoline and how that impacts small business and 
impacts our families, why will they not get behind Congressman Stupak 
and support The PUMP Act, get rid of the Enron loophole? Why will they 
not join with many of us who have sent letters to the President 
imploring him to release the strategic petroleum reserve or at least 
stop buying. One action would reduce, according to Goldman Sachs, the 
cost of a gallon of gasoline by 25 cents. And then there is the 
legislation that we passed that the Republicans voted against.
  So what we have is an accusation made by people who every time they 
have had an opportunity to take a concrete specific action that would 
help, have said no, have said no to the Enron loophole reform, have 
said no to The PUMP Act, have said no to stop buying in the strategic 
petroleum reserves.
  So it leaves me with a question. Is what we are hearing about 
politics, or is it about policy? I have come to my own conclusion. But 
we are here on a bill that is going to help small business. That is our 
job. And our job in this rule should be to make that bill a better 
bill, not to hijack what is a good bill and turn it into a political 
food fight.
  We have got two issues here that have been injected. One is, are we 
going to help small business or not? There is broad bipartisan support. 
The two committees of jurisdiction have done an excellent job.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. WELCH of Vermont. I urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings of Washington is 
as follows:

    Amendment to H. Res. 1125 Offered by Mr. Hastings of Washington

       At the end of the resolution, add the following:
       Sec. 3. Notwithstanding any other provision of this 
     resolution or the option of the previous question, it shall 
     be in order to consider any amendment to the bill which the 
     proponent asserts, if enacted, would have the effect of 
     lowering the national average price per gallon of regular 
     unleaded gasoline. Such amendments shall he considered as 
     read, shall he debatable for thirty minutes equally divided 
     and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be 
     subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand 
     for division of the question in the House or in the Committee 
     of the Whole. All points of order against such amendments are 
     waived except those arising under clause 9 of rule XXI. For 
     purposes of compliance with clause 9(a)(3) of rule XXI, a 
     statement submitted for printing in the Congressional Record 
     by the proponent of such amendment prior to its consideration 
     shall have the same effect as a statement actually printed.
       Sec. 4. Within five legislative days the Speaker shall 
     introduce a bill, the title of which is as follows: ``A bill 
     to provide a common sense plan to help bring down 
     skyrocketing gas prices.'' Such bill shall be referred to the 
     appropriate committees of jurisdiction pursuant to clause 1 
     of rule X.
                                  ____

       (The information contained herein was provided by 
     Democratic Minority on multiple occasions throughout the 
     109th Congress.)

        The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means

       This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous 
     question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote. 
     A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote 
     against the Democratic majority agenda and a vote to allow 
     the opposition, at least for the moment, to offer an 
     alternative plan. It is a vote about what the House should be 
     debating.
       Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of 
     Representatives, (VI, 308-311) describes the vote on the 
     previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or 
     control the consideration of the subject before the House 
     being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous 
     question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the 
     subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling 
     of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the 
     House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes 
     the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to 
     offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the 
     majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated 
     the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to 
     a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to 
     recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said: 
     ``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman 
     from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to 
     yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first 
     recognition.''
       Because the vote today may look bad for the Democratic 
     majority they will say ``the vote on the previous question is 
     simply a vote on whether to proceed to an immediate vote on 
     adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no substantive 
     legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' But that is 
     not what they have always said. Listen to the definition of 
     the previous question used in the Floor Procedures Manual 
     published by the Rules Committee in the 109th Congress, (page 
     56). Here's how the Rules Committee described the rule using 
     information from Congressional Quarterly's ``American 
     Congressional Dictionary'': ``If the previous question is 
     defeated, control of debate shifts to the leading opposition 
     member (usually the minority Floor Manager) who then manages 
     an hour of debate and may offer a germane amendment to the 
     pending business.''
       Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of Representatives, 
     the subchapter titled ``Amending Special Rules'' states: ``a 
     refusal to order the previous question on such a rule [a 
     special rule reported from the Committee on Rules] opens the 
     resolution to amendment and further debate.'' (Chapter 21, 
     section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: Upon rejection of the 
     motion for the previous question on a resolution reported 
     from the Committee on Rules, control shifts to the Member 
     leading the opposition to the previous question, who may 
     offer a proper amendment or motion and who controls the time 
     for debate thereon.''
       Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does 
     have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only 
     available tools for those who oppose the Democratic 
     majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the 
     opportunity to offer an alternative plan.

  Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on 
the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas 
and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further 
proceedings on this question will be postponed.

                          ____________________